Skip to main content
9:00 pm
office, financial community. because really 40-50% of the patrons are not necessarily shoppers. then we have the 3-4-hour stay of shopping and dining and what not. so a lot of different aspects we do bring in and with the comments and support of the non-profit corporations, really understands the community. i think that management oversight is very vital for the community for the benefit, not just to one department, not to the garage, but really to the city as a whole. i find myself being a resident, raising my kids in the city, that i'm an ambassador to the district that i serve. rather than driving way to a shopping mall with free parking, downtown is vital and easy access and really serving the community and for the benefit of the city. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning madame chair and mr. supervisor. my name is paul newman and i'm the counsel for the uptown
9:01 pm
parking corporation and i work with the corporation for many, many years. and i just want to say that the board consistents of downtown business people, who contribute their time and very serious and sincere in their efforts to provide service by providing parking. they are very clear and very concise in their attempts to run the garage in the best manner that they can and provide the most revenue for the city and the best service for downtown parking. and i have always been proud to be part of the uptown parking corporation, because i think they do a great job, and i would like to see them continue. so thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is sidney goodwell, the president of the uptown
9:02 pm
sparking corporation. i have been on the board for 30 years and i was a retailer in the area and still involved with property there. on our board we have a cross-section from retail and hotels and businesses in the area, who give their time over and over and over again, for one purpose only. to see what we can do to improve the situation in the union square area. it works very well. we have a good organization. i think we have two employees and i'm not sure if the corporation cease to exist that the work of these two employees would be just absorbed. you would have to probably have two other employees anyways. but i think we have done a great job. and i hope that we're able to continue. thank you. >> thank you.
9:03 pm
>> hi. my name is hagan choi, the president of the garage madame chair and supervisor avalos, we are representing the cross-section of the people and this board has excellent communication with san francisco municipal transportation agency. so like rate changes happen among the merchants and since we're the members of the small business, we're also members of the neighborhood. and we're working through our network with japan town task force, japan better neighborhood association. our board members are volunteers, and we care for the community. so we're involved
9:04 pm
in activities and involved? the japan center garage. thank you. >> good morning supervisors i'm bob hamagucci, on the board of directors for the japan center garage and i'm the executive director of the japantown task force. first off, let me comment that please excuse the absolute absence of our garage manage who suffered a back problem and unfortunately had to go to the emergency. what i wanted to comment on the japan center garage is a very important community asset and has
9:05 pm
particularly unique and strong value and i think both to the community and to the city. there is a long history with, this as you know, as related to the entire development of the shopping center, and back in the '60s and today, the issues of preservation of the japanese and cultural character of the neighborhood. so there is an ongoing need to support the existing small businesses and micro businesses, and i think this garage corporation serves a very important role in doing that. i think it's very important to have a ongoing understanding of local [kpwh-ebg/] needs. the marketing of the garage is conducted bit organization, and in conclusion, i think any lesser role would be a very significant loss to both the community and the city.
9:06 pm
thank you. >> thank you, are there other speakers for items 1 and 2? >> thank you, budget and finance. it's hard on a fella, when he doesn't always know his parking way around. we need some parking in the city, in the city and town. oh, it's a saturday night and i ain't get no parking. i need some parking in the city, hey. i am in an awful way. there is another fella, who told me he had a city for parking and driving just fine. instead of being my deliverance, it had a parking resemblance to a city of parking like frankenstein. oh, it's a saturday night and i ain't got no parking. i got no parking by the city in the bay. i am in an awful way.
9:07 pm
and i want to go downtown, where all the lights are bright. parking downtown, it's waiting for me tonight. parking downtown, the garage and parking is waiting for you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on items 1 or 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have two these items before us. if there are no other questions i do have a few comments to make on them. i do appreciate the folks who have come out to speak and i absolutely understand why it has become part of the fabric of some of the community where's they do exist. so i do want indicate that comment or register that comment. there are a few things that make me uncomfortable with this item and these were two pieces of legislation that i thought would be pretty easy, but as i
9:08 pm
started to speak to individuals about, it i became less comfortable in the two items and supporting them at this time. one, i'm still not quite convinced with regard to the transfer of the $2 million. these are funds that i know you had indicated not necessarily for capital, but for operations and the fact that that would be swept to the mta without regard to kind of capital component or needs that may exist for some of the garages. i'm a little bit weary about this component of it. the other area that gives me heartburn on this is the fact that we have existing structures that have been unwound in two other instances and in this case it seems like we're applying a very different standard from the mta board on them. you have two structures that are going to continue on or naught board has move forward to us and will continue as-is and two others unwound when bonds were paid off, where an advisory body continues to exist to make sure there is a
9:09 pm
strong relationship with the communities that they serve. so it's very strange, i think, for the mta to bring forward to us two very different structures without a rationalization as to why. so i think this is where i have a concern. if it is the case that we want to treat these two entities differently, then the other ones that have unwound in the city, i want to understand why. i want to understand what the cost-benefit analysis is. what is benefit to the city to do so? because otherwise, why wouldn't we we directly manage it? why wouldn't we hold the mta itself to a higher level of standard to deliver a good garage and good service? so i think that is where my concern does lie. i support the idea of supporting small businesses for most of my term. that is where i focused most of my legislation and efforts within my district to support the small businesses and know vitally well how much we do have to support them from everything on parking to making sure that we're helping with different facade improvements
9:10 pm
to really making sure that we have a vibrant merchant area. so i absolutely understand and sympathize with that, but i don't know why we have to have this structure in order to make that succeed? i think there are many, many ways we can help make sure we have a very vibrant merchant area. so i suppose i'm not seeing the connection to why there is this exception to the rule from the mta board and i would like to see more of that come to light before moving this item forward to consider at the full board of supervisors and so, of course, i would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this, but my incliningation is to continue the item to hear from the mta board to why the exception to the rule in this situation? and really trying to understand what the tangible reason is for not following audit recommendations? so those are many of the concerns and some of the comments that i wanted to make.
9:11 pm
>> i would continue, but not continue indefinitely. >> one of the things that i would like to hear from the mta, is there a time you could report back to the board of supervisors? >> chairman chu, steve [hrao-erbgs/] i think a 30-day period would be sufficient for us to look at it internally, as well as consult with the mta board >> okay, let's see on the date. february 13th >> yes. >> so i will make a motion to
9:12 pm
continue the item until february 13th, which is about a month away. can we do that without object? we'll do that without objection. thank you. next item, please. >> item no. 3 resolution approving the 4th amendment to the contract with icf resources llc for renewable energy and climate change professional services to increase the amount of the contract by $12,400,000 for a total of $31,400,000 and to extend the term of the contract from july 1 2014 to december 31 2016. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor, guillermo rodriguez from the department. we're here seeking your approval to the 4th amendment to the contract with icf resources to increase the contract amount by $12.4 million for a total of $31.4 million and to extend the term of the contract from july
9:13 pm
1,2014 through december 31, 2016. icf provides the department with process incentive payments and quality control for our energy-efficient programs, as well as technical assistance. the original contract was approved by the board of supervisors, in the amount of $19 million for five years and three months, and the department as this committee and the board knows has received additional funding for our energy-efficiency work and programs. we have secured additional funding for an additional two years and thus we're requesting increasing this contract and the date. i am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. >> on this item we not have a budget analyst's report, correct? why don't we open this item up to public comment. any members of public wishing to speak on item no. 3? >> wouldn't it be nice to make
9:14 pm
up city people -- we'll all agree soon the money is up more and more and the miracle that god created. one of the miracles got created. and the people city energy tree. soon the money is up more and more and more and then we'll have city more, budget more in the budget energy tree. the people city tree. >> thank you. are there other members of public who wish to speak on item no. 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. just a quick question to the department. with regard to the extension of the term, it looks like this is the 4th amendment to this term and i'm just wondering is there sort of a limitation under which you would go out and do a new rfp? >> correct, the term is now
9:15 pm
looking at sequence for this program and that would also give us the appropriate time to put together a new rfp for issuance going forward for additional work. >> so the intention is to go out with an rfp roughly in 2014? >> correct. >> >> this item is before us, do we have a motion? we have a motion to send item forward with recommendation and do that without objection. thank you. >> item nato 4, resolution fixing prevailing wage rates for workers performing work under city contracts. >> thank you for this item we have jennifer johnson. >> good morning, jennifer johnson executive director of the civil service commission. before you is certified rates bit civil service commission,
9:16 pm
certified on october 1st. annually the board of supervisors is required to fix the prevailing wage rates of employees who are employees of contractors performing services for the city and county of san francisco in the areas of public works and construction, motor bus service, janitorial, et cetera. and in establishing the preliminarying wage, the administrative code requires that the civil service commission to certify preliminarying wage data to you. again what have you before you is the vary conducted by the office of labor standards and enforcement, certified by the civil service commission october 1st for your consideration. we have donna levitt from the office of labor standards and enforcement, if you have
9:17 pm
questions. two exceptions, no. 1 being that the survey has included a review of fringe benefit data as required to a recent administrative code change and the second change being that the survey was completed by the office of labor standards enforcement instead of the department of human resources, which had previously been done in the past. and i can answer any questions that you may have in general, with respect to the administrative cold requirements. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the budget analyst's report? >> madame chair, and supervisor avalos, on page 4 of the report we point out on attachment 2, that is on page 7, that attachment summarizes the types of contracts, leases, operating agreements required to pay the preliminarying wages, with respect to collective bargaining agreements and labor union and hourly increases in 2013
9:18 pm
compared to 2012. the specified hourly rates exclude fringe benefits, pension, vacation and holiday pay, which are separately calculated and provided in the data forwarded by the civil service commission to the board of supervisors. we also note that any increase contract cost to the city as a result of the proposed resolution are dependent on future city contractors' bids and the extent to which increase of preliminarying wage rates result in higher bids submitted by city contractors and therefore he we cannot estimate any potential increase at this time. we a consider approval of this resolution to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?
9:19 pm
>> i am blue by you. we're going back some day, and we need some wage on blue bayou. where the budget is fine and you give us a dime, and it's thank you. and they work hard for the money. so hard for the money. they work hard for the money so you better treat them right. all right, they work hard for the money. so hard for it, city. they work hard for the money, so you better treat them right. all right? >> thank you. are there other members of public who wish to speak on item 4? seeing none, public comment is close. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation and we'll do that without objection. thank you. >> item no. 5, ordinance
9:20 pm
amending san francisco administrative code to create a public utilities water enterprise capital cost recovery payment surge charge fund. >> would you call item of as well? >> item no. 6, resolution approving the pre-pavement and collection a agreement between the bay area water supply and conservation agency and public utilities commission and authorizing the taking of appropriate agencies in connections therewith and related matters. >> thank you very much. todd redstrom from the puc. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you today. >> one moment, please. >> we're going to turn on the microphone. >> assistant jeffries & general and cfo for the public utilities commission. we appreciate the consideration of this proposal.
9:21 pm
it includes bond documents, a tax certificate, as well as a surcharge fund ordinance and most important that it provides rate-payer relief and savings. with that in mind i would like to thank the sponsors, the mayor's office, as well as supervisor chu. before you is a wholesale customer repayment, who purchase about two-thirds of all the water next hetchy system have the opportunity under their contract arrangement with the city to be able to pre-pay capital costs repayment. and these are old capital costs that were incurred previously. monday we sold our own sewer bonds of $19 2 million worth, our wholesale customers as well are able to issue bonds and now experience refunding savings. the approval would include pre-payment and [kphr-ebgs/]
9:22 pm
agreement, as well as sfpuc tax certificate, very similar to the review when you review our bond approvals for when the sfpuc is an issuer. in this case the issuer would be the wholesale customers not directly the sfpuc. >> and todd, just formality benefit of the public can you quickly distinguish who would be our wholesale customers versus retail? >> our whorl sale customers are primarily san mateo, santa clara and alameda counties. they are 26 agencies that provide water to aapproximately 1.5 million people outside of san francisco. inside of san francisco, are our retail customers and our retail customers will also benefit from this, because they will see lower bills than they would have otherwise seen with the capital repayment. the commission approved this back in december. it provides for rate-payer relief in the flare term, specifically in the next 8-10
9:23 pm
years for our retail consumers. a total of $362 million and it is permitted under the con trouting agreement that was signed by city and customers in 2009. this slide is the most important for our retail rate-payers inside the city and the column to the far right shows average monthly bills will be typically $5-8 dollars lower this. is the downstream impact of doing this deal and being able to refund the capital costs for our customers. so it benefits everybody, wholesale customers and also benefits a great deal of the retail customers over the next eight years. >> and todd, these rate increases are a reflection of voter-approved improvements, that is correct? >> that is right. they were planned as part of
9:24 pm
the $5 billion resip improvements and rebuild of the water system. so we are on track to do that and the majority of those programs would be completed by 2015-2016. the other slides are backup materials that show percentage rate change, as well as how we plan to use the bond proceeds. and we're using the bond proceeds consistent with what you have already approved in our capital budget, what you already approved in capital plan. and we're required to use them for eligible expenses under what the irs requires tax exempt bond financing. in addition to that we would use them for some reserves and those reserves basically allow us to have lower rate increases in future years. that is how they flow through the model. the prepavement collection agreement allows foyer surge charge and what will happen the water rate for wholesale customers will go down, but they will levy a surcharge on
9:25 pm
themselves and they will provide that information to us and we'll be a billing and collection agent. the approval would be before you, consideration and finance today. the board next week, if you concur, and then they would like to go to market in january, january 31st and close at the end of february. thank you for your consideration. we very grateful for the budget analyst's report and their thorough review and we agree with their recommendation as well. >> thank you. i had one question. there was a section that budget analyst report highlighted which basically said that the requirement or part of the agreement also indemnifies the puc for costs that may result due to bawsca's erroneous determination of the surge charge that the tax-exempt bonds are taxable unless deemed taxable due to the puc's violation of the certificate. i'm just trying to understand what that means. >> what that means is just
9:26 pm
like when we sell bonds we're required to use the bond proceeds for eligible uses. so the tax certificate that is before you today says that the sfpuc will provide the best efforts to depend tax-exempt proceeds on capital eligible spending which is why the spending plan on one of the slides specifically lays out how we're using tax-exempt bond proceeds. so we follow our best efforts and review those and the city spends the money consistently and the bawsca would members would indemnify us. see its a protection. >> so they would mid-atlantic sure that the surge charges levied are enough to cover? >> that ; is that correct?. all the risks are a burden on them. we have to then use our best efforts to be consistent with the irs regulations just like we do for the $5 billion of bonds that we have outstanding right now.
9:27 pm
>> okay. why don't we go to the budget analyst's report? >> madame chair, supervisor avalos, on page 8 of our report, we point out that as shown in attachment 1,the wholesale customers total principal and interest payments to the ing over the 25-year term. we also point out that although the proposed $362.3 million [prao*-epl/] payment would cause puc to forego future interest earnings, through 2014-2013 [#34*-rbgs/] the wholesale customers have the right to pre-pay the balance owed on capital assets under the existing water supply agreement. plas reed
9:28 pm
recommend [tkwhra-eubgsz/] puc has submitted amended legislation to the committee on page [#1-e6/] our report. first of all we recommend that you approve the resolution for the approval and execution of the wholesale water revenue pre-payment and collection agreement. and we also [r-eplts/] that recommend that you delete line 10 and 11 on line 2 and replace it with "see administrative fund, the fund shall be maintained from july 1 2013 through the termination date of the wholesale water revenue pre-payment and collection agreement." and that you
9:29 pm
approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> just to clarify, the budget amount recommends amending file 5 with regards to the fund and in addition, it looks like department also submited some language to change for item 6. currently it reads that the clerk of board is directed to file a copy of said form of pre-payment agreet with minutes of this motmeting. amended language should read, "the general manager shall submit a copy of the pre-payment agreement for the clerk of the board for inclusion in file 121203 i.e., and that is a request from the department to make amendment. there are two amendments one to item 5 and one to item 6. why don't we open up the item for public comment? anyone wishes to speak to item 5s and 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay and so we have got

January 22, 2013 9:00pm-9:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 5, Avalos 3, Chu 2, Jennifer Johnson 2, Bob Hamagucci 1, Mta 1, Paul Newman 1, Steve 1, Bayou 1, Nato 1, Jeffries & General 1, Puc 1, Guillermo Rodriguez 1, The Term 1, Sfpuc 1, Bawsca 1, Fella 1, San Mateo 1, Alameda 1, City 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color